Rendering environments such as, for example, print shops require a variety of plan templates (or workflow plans) in order to achieve maximum efficiency and output in the production and rendering of documents, graphics, and so forth. A print shop can be a system wherein devices for formatting, printing, cutting, and binding are utilized to create a finished printed product such as a book or brochure. A “plan template” and a “workflow plan” are both essentially an ordered or partially ordered list of the actions needed to manufacture the desired finished product using the devices available. The difference between a “plan template” and a “workflow plan” is measured by the completeness of the plan. A “plan template” is typically a partial or skeleton plan and a “workflow plan” is typically a complete plan.
When “lights out” workflow automation is desired in a print shop, the automated synthesizing of a plan template within the capabilities of the devices and services of the print shop is necessary. Current device capability description languages describe what an individual device is capable of performing, but are not efficient in describing the relationships between individual devices (e.g., Imposition must come before Print for a printer that does not do on-board imposition), nor do they express adequately how the device will effect or alter the plan template. It should be noted that printing of books is performed by printing large sheets of paper which are formatted through a process called imposition, for later folding that will result in sequential pagination. One example of the inefficiency of current device capability description languages is when an imposition device that performs Booklet-Signature imposition, the imposition device may alter the input image size from, for example, 8.5×11 to 17×11. Such an effect is not often described by the capability description of the imposition device. For this reason, the current state of the art can only be effectively used to synthesize plan templates for which every effect of each step in the workflow is known “a priori” at the start of workflow execution, which is not always realistic.
Additionally, many of the constraints and capabilities of a device are not often contained in a formal capability description file, but are instead only available from other sources (e.g., queue settings, implicit knowledge, etc.). There are also a variety of device capability description languages which can further complicate how individual devices communicate. Some languages describe or relate to the capabilities of a printer. Another common device capability description language is Job Definition Format (JDF) which describes the capabilities of a wide range of devices found in the print shop. All of these factors make it difficult to accurately automatically synthesize a plan template in a print shop.
Plan templates can be generated utilizing a number of different approaches. For example, plan templates can be automatically generated using technology that converts a product description into a plan template. Plan templates can also be manually created as part of the order entry process and planning process within a print shop. Finally, a plan template may be supplied by an external entity, such as when a print shop receives work that has been vended out from another print shop.
Also of importance in “lights out” automation of a printing environment is a reliable means of generating a fully parameterized workflow plan. A plan template describes only at a high-level the workflow to be executed. It typically describes the desired press-sheet (Media) size, the nodes in the workflow (e.g., impose followed by print), the relationships between them (e.g., ordering), and high-level parameterization (e.g., requires multi-up Imposition). On the other hand, a completely parameterized workflow plan describes everything contained in a plan template, but also includes all of the necessary details: such as all the details of the Media (color, opacity, etc.), detailed parameterization of the process nodes (e.g., 5×2 multi-up grid Imposition centered on an 8.5×11 surface), descriptive information (e.g., customer contacts), quality of service information (e.g., required delivery/completion date), document content files (e.g., PDF files), and many other details.
Generating a plan template and a completely parameterized workflow plan are often accomplished as a single step, or the plan template is specified in a static way and used during the parameterization step. If these two aspects of generating a workflow plan are separated, then different techniques can be used to solve each aspect. It is believed that a system is needed that is capable of generating a plan template separate from a fully parameterized workflow plan. It is also believed that there exists a need for a way to dynamically generate plan templates such that they would be consistent with the current state and preferences of an arbitrary print shop. Such dynamic plan templates would allow an automated workflow plan generation system to adapt to the current state of the print shop in a more seamless manner.